The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1887-06-22
MARRIED OMEN.

Some newspaper men in the state
nave been very harsh in their criti-
cfsms OF the recent decision OF tho
Supreme Court ON tho question Of
the married woman's power to *
ecute q binding contract as surety
for her husband. Some have be-
comingly remained silent, others
nave approved of the decision.
Those who are most severe In their
criticisms do not belong to that
profession in which only they could
becom schoolcd to be able to OK
press an opinion worthy OF serious
consideration. DO they know
whereof they speak? In any
event they do not speak or cdthe-
ora, and therefore their dicta are
binding on nobodyI The . dissent
ing opinion of MI. Justice Mellow
AN IN the Rush case is able and CO.
gent, but the same might be said al
70 of the opinion of Chief Justice
SIMPSON, concurrcd in by Mr.. JUS
ticc MCIvER. Their opinion being
of a majority Of the Court is there
fore binding as law until reversed.
They have ordered the case to be
re-argucd at tho November Term,
but 1t is not likely that they will
change their opinion, as the case Of
Rush was thoroughly and ably ar
gued before them and was duly con-
sidcred by the Judges in the con-
sultation room before the decision
was made.
1t Is not yet on record where any
OF the present Court "took back
water" and completely reversed
their former opinion upon the same
state Of facts. The decision In the
Rhsh case might have been OK
pccted sihcc the decision in the
Jennie Agnew case in which Mr..
Justice MCGOWAN filed a short dis
scnting opinion.
1t is error in the press to say that
the question came under the princi.
pie OF "communis error facit JUS
The courts had not been in the hab-
ltof deciding the question that way
ms they had done in Davenport vs.
Caldwell. Titles had not vested in
property under the decision Of the
courts on the question. But the
case was carried to the Supreme
Court at the earliest opportunity,
and then speedily decided and pub
llshed. We can't say that the law
yars of the up-country were gencr-
ally of the opinion contrary to that
of the majority of the court. 1t
does not matter that some OF the
Circuit Judges are of the contrary
opinion. They arc mere men and
their decisions arc no more bind
ing generally than the opinion of
other learned men in the profession.
"A Circuit Judge recently fled a de-
cree in a case on this very question
and In the beginning Of his opinion
nc states that the question was be-
fore the Supreme Court, but when
nc filed his decree about thirty days
after the decision Of tho Supreme
Court on the question and after it
had been published in the newspa-
pers and discussed freely by the
public, he made no mention of the
decision at all. 1t seems that he
wrote his decree before the dccis-
loa, and filed it several weeks nf-
forwards without changing it. 1t
Is common sense that If tho note
which tho mortgage was.givcn to
secure be void in the beginning, the
mortgage, a more security incident
10 the note, will also BIO void.
80 much is said in regard to
the law as 1t now stands and not in
regard to what it should be. We
believe that the law as it now
stands is against commercial faith
and credit, and against the agricul-
tural interests Of the State. The
Legislature should amend the law
at It's :ext session. But II new pill
will not remedy the old di tease.
They must stand upon the old law.
We do not believe that any sgood
woman In the state wonld try to
cheat her husban DIS creditors out
of an honest debt sSby pleading such
n defense; hut 1t Is her right and
commendablo course to do SO when
Shyiocks are demanding their bonds
with usurious intere est on unjuyt
claims against the husband.
EAaIMI LnIEnnMralIi IakHa |